From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Network function virtualization (NFV) has drawn significant attention from both industry and academia as an important shift in telecommunication service provisioning. By decoupling network functions (NFs) from the physical devices on which they run, NFV has the potential to lead to significant reductions in operating expenses (OPEX) and capital expenses (CAPEX) and facilitate the deployment of new services with increased agility and faster time-to-value. The NFV paradigm is still in its infancy and there is a large spectrum of opportunities for the research community to develop new architectures, systems and applications, and to evaluate alternatives and trade-offs in developing technologies for its successful deployment. In this paper, after discussing NFV and its relationship with complementary fields of software defined networking (SDN) and cloud computing, we survey the state-of-the-art in NFV, and identify promising research directions in this area. We also overview key NFV projects, standardization efforts, early implementations, use cases, and commercial products.

/pdf/network-function-virtualization-state-of-the-art-and-29gg3feprt.pdf

Network Function Virtualization: State-of-the-Art and Research Challenges

Network functions virtualization (NFV) is a new network architecture framework where network function that traditionally used dedicated hardware (middleboxes or network appliances) are now implemented in software that runs on top of general purpose hardware such as high volume server. NFV emerges as an initiative from the industry (network operators, carriers, and manufacturers) in order to increase the deployment flexibility and integration of new network services with increased agility within operator’s networks and to obtain significant reductions in operating expenditures and capital expenditures. NFV promotes virtualizing network functions such as transcoders, firewalls, and load balancers, among others, which were carried out by specialized hardware devices and migrating them to software-based appliances. One of the main challenges for the deployment of NFV is the resource allocation of demanded network services in NFV-based network infrastructures. This challenge has been called the NFV resource allocation (NFV-RA) problem. This paper presents a comprehensive state of the art of NFV-RA by introducing a novel classification of the main approaches that pose solutions to solve it. This paper also presents the research challenges that are still subject of future investigation in the NFV-RA realm.

Resource Allocation in NFV: A Comprehensive Survey

A Comprehensive Survey of Network Function Virtualization

Service function chaining is a network capability that provides support for application-driven-networking through the ordered interconnection of service functions. The lifecycle management of service function chains is enabled by two recently emerged technologies, software defined networking and network function virtualization, that promise a number of efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility gains. This article introduces a service function chaining taxonomy that considers architecture and performance dimensions as the basis for the subsequent stateof- the-art analysis. The article concludes with a gap analysis of existing solutions and the identification of future research challenges.

Service Function Chaining in Next Generation Networks: State of the Art and Research Challenges

Cloud computing infrastructures will likely be a key component of future Internet architectures, owing to the many advantages of server and network virtualization, especially considering the emerging Network Function Virtualization and Software Defined Networking technologies. The cloud infrastructure will then determine the performance of the networking environment. In this paper, such issue is investigated with reference to OpenStack, a widely adopted cloud infrastructure management platform. In particular, the paper provides an insight on how OpenStack deals with multi-tenant network virtualization and evaluates the performance of its main network components by measuring packet throughput in an experimental test-bed.

https://ans.disi.unitn.it/inw2015/presentations/s3-5-callegati-performance.pdf

Performance of Network Virtualization in cloud computing infrastructures: The OpenStack case

This manuscript investigates the issue of implementing chains of network functions in a “softwarized” environment where edge network middle-boxes are replaced by software appliances running in virtual machines within a data center. The primary goal is to show that this approach allows space and time diversity in service chaining, with a higher degree of dynamism and flexibility with respect to conventional hardware-based architectures. The manuscript describes implementation alternatives of the virtual function chaining in a SDN scenario, showing that both layer 2 and layer 3 approaches are functionally viable. A proof-of-concept implementation with the Mininet emulation platform is then presented to provide a practical example of the feasibility and degree of complexity of such approaches.

Dynamic chaining of Virtual Network Functions in cloud-based edge networks

One of the main challenges in delivering end-toend service chains across multiple Software Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) domains is to achieve unified management and orchestration functions. A very critical aspect is the definition of an open, vendoragnostic, and interoperable northbound interface (NBI) that should be as abstracted as possible from domain-specific data and control plane technologies. In this paper we propose a reference architecture and an intent-based NBI for end-to-end service orchestration across multiple technological domains. In particular, we consider the use case of an Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure deployment and the corresponding cloudbased data collection, processing, and publishing services with quality differentiation.We also report the experimental validation of the proposed architecture over a heterogeneous OpenFlow/IoT SDN test bed.

/pdf/intent-based-management-and-orchestration-of-heterogeneous-3p0qegmxbc.pdf

Intent-based management and orchestration of heterogeneous openflow/IoT SDN domains

This article reports a network functions virtualization proof of concept demonstrating the added value that dynamic software-defined networking control, coordinated with a flexible cloud management approach, brings to telco operators and service providers.

SDN for dynamic NFV deployment

Future network architectures based on the emerging Network Function Virtualization and Software Defined Networking paradigms will significantly rely on cloud computing infrastructures, taking advantage of virtualization technologies. Performance of multi-tenant virtual networks will then be a key aspect to be considered when designing such cloud-based architectures. This issue is investigated in this paper with reference to the widely adopted OpenStack cloud infrastructure management platform. In particular, the paper provides an insight on how OpenStack deals with multi-tenant network virtualization and evaluates its performance in an experimental test-bed.

Chiara Contoli

Papers

Performance of Network Virtualization in cloud computing infrastructures: The OpenStack case

Dynamic chaining of Virtual Network Functions in cloud-based edge networks

Intent-based management and orchestration of heterogeneous openflow/IoT SDN domains

SDN for dynamic NFV deployment

Performance of multi-tenant virtual networks in OpenStack-based cloud infrastructures